surveyofthesynanthropicfliesassociatedwith ...downloads.hindawi.com/journals/jpr/2012/613132.pdf ·...

Hindawi Publishing CorporationJournal of Parasitology ResearchVolume 2012, Article ID 613132, 9 pagesdoi:10.1155/2012/613132

Research Article

Survey of the Synanthropic Flies Associated withHuman Habitations in Ubon Ratchathani Province ofNortheast Thailand

Tarinee Chaiwong,1 Thanyakarn Srivoramas,1 Kom Sukontason,2 Michelle R. Sanford,3

Kittikhun Moophayak,4 and Kabkaew L. Sukontason2

1 College of Medicine and Public Health, Ubon Ratchathani University, Warinchamrap, Ubon Ratchathani 34190, Thailand2 Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Muang, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand3 Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA4 Bung Borapet Research and Training Center, Mahidol University Nakhonsawan Campus, Nakhonsawan 60000, Thailand

Correspondence should be addressed to Tarinee Chaiwong, tarinee [email protected]

Received 2 February 2012; Accepted 27 June 2012

Academic Editor: D. S. Lindsay

Copyright © 2012 Tarinee Chaiwong et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons AttributionLicense, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properlycited.

Synanthropic fly surveys were performed to determine the species composition and abundance in Ubon Ratchathani provincein Northeast Thailand. Adult fly collections were conducted in various human habitations from two districts—Muang UbonRatchathani and Warinchamrap, at fresh-food markets, garbage piles, restaurants, school cafeterias, and rice paddy fields.Customized reconstructable funnel fly traps baited with 250 g of 1-day tainted beef were used for fly collections from September2010–February 2011. A total of 3,262 flies were captured, primarily consisting of three families including: Calliphoridae (6 species),Muscidae (3 species), and Sarcophagidae (11 species). The blow fly, Chrysomya megacephala, and the house fly, Musca domestica,were the dominant species collected from both districts at all collection sites. C. megacephala was predominant in paddy fields,restaurants and garbage piles, while M. domestica was numerically dominant in fresh-food markets and school cafeterias. Thecurrent survey identified various species of synanthropic flies with close associations to humans and with the ability to transmithuman pathogens in Ubon Ratchathani province; providing crucial information that may be used for developing control andsanitation management plans in this particular area.

1. Introduction

Synanthropic flies are those flies which are adapted to live inclose association with human habitations and are capable oftransmitting human pathogens either mechanically or bio-logically through this close relationship [1]. The link betweenhuman pathogens and fly transmission is due to the factthat adults feed on animal manure, trash, human excrement,and other decaying materials; readily moving between thesehabitats and food, food preparation surfaces, and humansthemselves [2]. Species of flies in the families Muscidae(house flies, latrine flies, and relatives), the Calliphoridae(blow flies and bottle flies), and the Sarcophagidae (fleshflies) have evolved to live in close association with human

development. There are over 50 species of synanthropic fliesthat have been reported to be associated with unsanitaryconditions and involved in the dissemination of humanenteropathogens in the environment [2]. In addition, thelarvae of these flies can also cause myiasis in human and live-stock [3]. The annoyance and public health risks associatedwith large populations of such flies is thus considerable.

Population densities of synanthropic flies are largely tiedto sanitation practices such that they are abundant in bothurban and rural areas where unsanitary conditions exist andare usually scarce when sanitary conditions are enforced[4]. Synanthropic fly population surveys are often conductedwith respect to enteropathogenic bacteria transmission [5–8]as well as some gastrointestinal parasites [9]. Another notable

2 Journal of Parasitology Research

feature of synanthropic fly populations is their propensityfor very rapid fluctuations in population density, often withadult numbers increasing by up to two orders of magnitudein a few days [10]. Thus, survey data that is collected overlong periods of time is required to capture the variationpresent in fly population densities, species composition, andrichness.

Synanthropic fly surveys have been conducted in manycountries of the Southeast Asian region. In Malaysia, thepredominant species recovered from surveys was M. domes-tica, but Sarcophaga spp. were not identified in these studies[11, 12]. In Thailand, surveys of Muscidae and Calliphoridaehave shown that M. domestica, and C. megacephala, are thetwo most prevalent species collected [13–16]. However, todate, no survey of the Sarcophagidae in Thailand has beenmade. Sarcophagidae are technically challenging to identifyand require examination of the male genitalia. Therefore,they are often not resolved to specific taxonomic resolution.

There is a great need for long-term surveys in Thailand ofthe three major synanthropic fly families to help determinethe effectiveness of sanitation practices, identify breedingsites, determine fly population fluctuations, determine theneed for control measures, and identify other insect speciesthat will inadvertently be affected by the chosen controlmethods [12]. The broad aim of this study was to determinethe synanthropic fly species composition in two areas ofUbon Ratchathani province in Northeast Thailand: MuangUbon Ratchathani and Warinchamrap districts, and toexamine population fluctuations, species composition, andabundance over a six-month study period. Baseline synan-thropic fly data will provide a means to generate integratedpest management plans for fly control and determine theimpact on the human community.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Collection. Fly surveys were conducted in two areasof Ubon Ratchathani province in Northeast Thailand—Muang Ubon Ratchathani district (the capital district ofthe province) and Warinchamrap district. Collections werecarried out at ten collection sites in each of the two districtsduring September 2010–February 2011. The collection sitesin each district were selected to include places wherepeople and flies would most likely interact with respectto enteropathogenic bacterial transmission, including fresh-food markets, garbage piles, restaurants, school cafeterias,and rice paddy fields where flies have the opportunity tofeed on both waste or unsanitary materials and human fooditems. The locality of each study area was georeferenced by aGarmin GPSMP 60CSx (Figure 1).

Adult fly collections were performed using individuallydeployed traps separated by approximately 1 km at each site.Customized funnel trap kits, designed by K. Sukontason[16], were deployed at each collection site in the morning(09:00–12:00). This trap consists of three components: (1)a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) frame box (30 × 30 × 30 cm),(2) a fly entrance module, and (3) a black fly net (30 × 30

× 30 cm) [16]. Each trap was baited with 250 g of 1-day-old beef tainted by leaving at room temperature for 24 hours[17]. The bait was kept in a translucent plastic container andplaced underneath the fly entrance module for the durationof trapping. After the three-hour collection period, the flynet was sealed, detached from the PVC frame, individuallyplaced in transparent plastic bags, and transported to thelaboratory at the College of Medicine and Public Health,Ubon Ratchathani University. At the laboratory, flies weresacrificed by placing the plastic bags from each trap into afreezer set at −20◦C for 15 min. All flies were counted, sexed,and identified the lowest taxonomic resolution possible usingthe taxonomic keys from Tumrasvin et al. [18] and Kurahashiand Chowanadisai [19].

2.2. Statistical Analysis. Following identification and abun-dance calculations for each site and species a chi-square testwas used to compare between the two predominant species,C. megacephala and M. domestica, from the five collectionsites. A Kruskal-Wallis Analysis of Variance (KW-ANOVA)followed by individual Mann-Whitney U tests were used totest for statistical differences among sites between the twopredominant species at each site in each district. To analyzethe abundance of C. megacephala and M. domestica overtime, the data were first transformed with the natural log(ln(X + 1)) to normalize the data. An analysis of variance(ANOVA) was then conducted for each species using theUnivariate General Linear Model (GLM) in SPSS 16.0 (SPSSGraduate Pack for Windows 16.0.1, Chicago, IL, USA). Themodel consisted of the variables location (Muang UbonRatchathani or Warinchamrap), month of collection and theinteraction between location and month. Significance for alltests was observed at the α = 0.05 level.

3. Results

During the six months sampled, a total of 3,262 flies werecollected from the ten collection sites. The surveys in MuangUbon Ratchathani and Warinchamrap districts yielded atotal of 2,257 and 1,005 flies, respectively (Tables 1 and2). Species from all three main synanthropic fly families ofMuscidae, Calliphoridae, and Sarcophagidae were recoveredfrom the surveys. The dominant species captured was theblow fly, C. megacephala, which ranked first in prevalence atall the collection sites, followed by M. domestica.

At the five collection sites in Muang Ubon Ratchathani,six species of blow flies were found with C. megacephala asthe most prevalent at 61.76% followed by Achoetandrus rufi-facies, Hemipyrellia ligurriens, Lucilia cuprina, Ceylonomyianigripes, and Hemipyrellia pulchra, subsequently. Withinthe Muscidae, M. domestica was most abundant at 13.20%and Boettcherisca peregrina was the dominant species ofSarcophagidae at 0.53% of the total flies collected (Table 1).The highest abundance of synanthropic flies were recoveredfrom the restaurant sites at 46.57% followed by schoolcafeterias, paddy fields, garbage piles, and fresh-food marketsat 23.79%, 16.54%, 7.74%, and 5.17% of total catch, respec-tively. The highest number of C. megacephala was recorded in

Journal of Parasitology Research 3

S

N

Paddy field

School cafeteria

Garbage pile

Restaurant

Fresh-food market

Garbage pile

School cafeteria

Fresh-food market

Paddy field

Restaurant

District

Muang Ubon Ratchathani district

Warinchamrap district

0 1.5 3 6

Thailand Ubon Ratchathani province

(Kilometers)

Figure 1: Ten collection sites for adult fly collections in Muang Ubon Ratchathani and Warinchamrap districts, Ubon Ratchathani provinceNortheast Thailand.


Ta

ble

1:Sp

ecie

sco

mpo

siti

onof

syn

anth

ropi

cfl

yco

llect

edfr

omva

riou

shu

man

hab

itat

ion

sin

Mu

ang

Ubo

nR

atch

ath

anid

istr

ict,

Ubo

nR

atch

ath

anip

rovi

nce

,Nor

thea

stT

hai

lan

ddu

rin

gSe

ptem

ber

2010

–Feb

ruar

y20

11.

Nu

mbe

rfl

ies

colle

cted

Spec

ies

Fres

h-f

ood

mar

kets

Res

tau

ran

tG

arba

gepi

les

Sch

oolc

afet

eria

sPa

ddy

fiel

dsTo

tal

Tota

l%

FM

Tota

lF

MTo

tal

FM

Tota

lF

MTo

tal

FM

Tota

lF

MFa

mily

Cal

liph

orid

aeC

hrys

omya

meg

acep

hala

3710

4755

420

876

210

58

113

247

7432

113

912

151

1,08

231

21,

394

61.7

6A

choe

tand

rus

rufif

acie

s—

——

5312

652

24

415

4696

1310

919

232

224

9.92

Hem

ipyr

ellia

ligur

rien

s—

——

82

101

12

205

2527

1946

5627

833.

68Lu

cilli

acu

prin

a3

—3

31

41

12

22

42

—2

114

150.

66C

eylo

nom

yia

nigr

ipes

——

——

——

——

——

——

2—

22

—2

0.09

Hem

ipyr

ellia

pulc

hra

——

——

——

——

——

——

1—

11

—1

0.04

Oth

ersp

ecie

s—

——

——

——

——

—1

1—

——

—1

10.

04Fa

mily

Mu

scid

aeM

usca

dom

esti

ca51

960

121

2014

137

643

433

466

28

258

4029

813

.20

Hyd

rota

easp

p.—

——

41

5—

——

141

15—

——

182

200.

88A

ther

igon

asp

p.—

——

6—

6—

——

8—

8—

——

14—

140.

62H

ydro

taea

spin

iger

a—

——

32

5—

——

——

——

——

32

50.

22H

ydro

taea

chal

ogas

ter

——

——

——

1—

1—

——

——

—1

—1

0.04

Dic

haet

omyi

asp

p.—

——

——

——

——

—1

1—

——

—1

10.

04O

ther

Mu

scid

ae—

——

295

34—

——

47—

47—

——

765

813.

59Fa

mily

Sarc

oph

agid

aeB

oett

cher

isca

pere

grin

a—

——

——

——

——

—2

2—

1010

—12

120.

53Li

opyg

iaru

ficor

nis

——

—3

—3

——

—1

12

——

—4

15

0.22

Para

sarc

opha

gadu

x—

——

——

——

22

—2

2—

——

—4

40.

18H

arpa

goph

alla

kem

pi—

——

——

——

——

——

——

33

—3

30.

13Pa

rasa

rcop

haga

brev

icor

nis

——

——

——

——

——

11

—1

1—

22

0.09

Para

sarc

opha

gasc

opar

iifo

rmis

——

——

——

——

——

——

—2

2—

22

0.09

Boe

ttch

eris

cana

than

i—

——

——

——

——

——

——

11

—1

10.

04M

yorh

iana

caud

agal

li—

——

——

——

——

——

——

11

—1

10.

04Pa

rasa

rcop

haga

albi

ceps

——

——

11

——

——

——

——

——

11

0.04

Sino

nipp

onia

kom

i—

——

——

——

——

——

——

11

—1

10.

04Si

noni

ppon

iaha

rina

suit

ai—

——

——

——

——

——

——

22

—2

20.

09Sa

rcop

haga

spp.

7—

717

—17

8—

817

—17

34—

3483

—83

3.68

Tota

l(%

)98

1911

7(5

.18)

801

252

1,05

3(4

6.65

)15

520

175

(7.7

5)44

098

538

(23.

84)

307

6737

4(1

6.50

)1,

801

456

2,25

7(1

00)

100

F:Fe

mal

e,M

:Mal

e.


Ta

ble

2:Sp

ecie

sco

mpo

siti

onof

syn

anth

ropi

cfl

yco

llect

edfr

omva

riou

shu

man

hab

itat

ion

sin

War

inch

amra

pdi

stri

ct,U

bon

Rat

chat

han

ipro

vin

ce,N

orth

east

Th

aila

nd

duri

ng

Sept

embe

r20

10–F

ebru

ary

2011

.

Nu

mbe

rfl

ies

colle

cted

Spec

ies

Fres

h-f

ood

mar

kets

Res

tau

ran

tG

arba

gepi

les

Sch

oolc

afet

eria

sPa

ddy

fiel

dsTo

tal

Tota

loffl

ies

cau

ght

%F

MTo

tal

FM

Tota

lF

MTo

tal

FM

Tota

lF

MTo

tal

FM

Fam

ilyC

allip

hor

idae

Chr

ysom

yam

egac

epha

la45

954

141

1615

723

9824

224

—24

125

3616

135

815

951

751

.44

Hem

ipyr

ellia

ligur

rien

s4

—4

2413

375

—10

4—

428

1038

6523

888.

76A

choe

tand

rus

rufif

acie

s—

——

1—

118

546

——

—15

—15

345

393.

88Lu

cilli

acu

prin

a5

—5

82

101

14

——

——

11

144

181.

79H

emip

yrel

liapu

lchr

a—

——

1—

1—

——

——

—8

210

92

111.

09O

ther

Cal

liph

olid

ae—

——

——

——

——

——

—2

—2

2—

20.

20Fa

mily

Mu

scid

aeM

usca

dom

esti

ca85

2511

024

1337

2115

7228

836

4—

416

261

223

22.1

9A

ther

igon

asp

p.39

—39

5—

5—

——

——

——

——

44—

444.

38H

ydro

taea

spp.

4—

44

—4

——

——

——

——

—8

—8

0.80

Dic

haet

omyi

asp

p.—

——

——

——

——

——

—1

—1

1—

10.

10O

ther

Mu

scid

ae—

11

——

——

——

——

——

——

—1

10.

10Fa

mily

Sarc

oph

agid

aeB

oett

cher

isca

pere

grin

a—

——

—2

2—

——

——

——

33

—5

50.

50Li

opyg

iaru

ficor

nis

——

—1

—1

2—

4—

——

——

—3

—3

0.30

Sarc

oroh

dend

rofia

prin

ceps

——

——

——

——

——

——

—3

3—

33

0.30

Har

pago

phal

lake

mpi

—1

1—

11

——

——

——

——

——

22

0.20

Para

sarc

opha

gabr

evic

orni

s—

——

——

——

——

——

——

11

—1

10.

10Pa

rasa

rcop

haga

dux

——

——

11

——

——

——

——

——

11

0.10

Sarc

opha

gasp

p.5

—5

9—

97

—14

7—

710

—10

38—

383.

78To

tal(

%)

187

3622

3(2

2.19

)21

848

266

(26.

47)

7711

939

2(3

9.00

)63

871

(7.0

6)19

356

249

(24.

78)

738

267

1,00

5(1

00)

100

F:Fe

mal

e,M

:Mal

e.


Muang Ubon Ratchathani from the restaurant sites, whereasthe lowest number was collected at the fresh-food marketsites (Table 1 and Figure 2(a)). M. domestica was also mostabundant at the restaurant site, but it was least abundantat the paddy field (Table 1 and Figure 2(a)). Collections ofC. nigripes and H. pulchra were made only at the paddyfield sites. Eleven species of flesh flies were recorded andscattered among all the collection sites (Table 1). The numberof females collected was greater than males at all collectionsites, with female to male ratio at 3.2 : 1, 4.6 : 1, 4.6 : 1, 5.2 : 1,and 7.6 : 1 in restaurant, school cafeterias, paddy fields, fresh-food markets, and garbage piles, respectively (Table 1).

In Warinchamrap, blow flies were numerically dominantwith C. megacephala being the primary species collected(51.44%). These observations differ with respect to therelative abundances of blow flies collected from the differentsites when compared to those recorded in Muang UbonRatchathani. H. ligurriens was the second most abundantspecies followed by A. rufifacies, L. cuprina, and H. pulchra,subsequently. No C. nigripes were collected from Warin-chamrap during this collection period. M. domestica rankedfirst among collected flies in Muscidae (22.19%); while B.peregrina was the dominant species of flesh fly at 0.50%of the total number collected (Table 2). The garbage pilesshowed the highest abundance of synanthropic flies col-lected from Warinchamrap (39.00%), followed by restaurant,paddy field, fresh-food market, and school cafeteria sites,respectively. The highest number of C. megacephala recordedin this district was at the garbage piles, whereas the lowestnumber was found at the fresh-food markets (Table 2 andFigure 2(b)). M. domestica was the most abundant at thefresh-food markets, but the lowest abundance was at thepaddy fields (Table 2 and Figure 2(b)). Six species of fleshflies were collected among all the sites. Similar to the resultsobserved in the Muang district, the number of femalescollected exceeded males, with the female:male ratio being3.5 : 1, 4.6 : 1, 5.2 : 1, and 7.9 : 1 in the paddy fields, restaurant,fresh-food markets, and school cafeterias, respectively. Incontrast to the Muang district, flies collected from garbagepiles indicated fewer females than males, with a female:maleratio of 0.65 : 1 (Table 2).

Fly abundance varied across collection site type. Acomparison of these two species among collection sitesshows that significantly more C. megacephala were collectedat the restaurant sites than any other type of site in theMuang Ubon Ratchathani (Figure 2(a)). The pattern for M.domestica is similar with significantly more flies collectedat restaurants than at any other site except for fresh-foodmarkets (Figure 2(a)). Fewer flies were collected at all sites inthe Warinchamrap district overall with significantly more C.megacephala collected in the restaurant and paddy fields sitesand significantly fewer M. domestica collected in the paddyfields (Figure 2(b)).

A significant difference was observed between the preva-lence of the two dominant species, C. megacephala andM. domestica, collected from Muang Ubon Ratchathaniand Warinchamrap at all collection sites (P < 0.001)(Table 3). Comparing the two districts over time illustratesthese differences, suggesting seasonality to C. megacephala

populations in the Muang Ubon Ratchathani, but not inWarinchamrap (Figure 3(a)). The ANOVA results showed astatistically significant difference between locations (F1,108 =11.493; P = 0.001) with significantly more C. megacephalacollected in Muang Ubon Ratchathani. There was not asignificant difference among months (F5,108 = 0.670; P =0.647) or in the interaction between location and month(F5,108 = 0.324; P = 0.898). This pattern was not clearlydefined in M. domestica (Figure 3(b)) and there was nosignificant difference in the mean abundance of house fliescollected between the two sites (F1,108 = 0.846; P = 0.360).There were also no significant differences found amongmonths (F5,108 = 0.754; P = 0.585) or in the interactionbetween location and month (F5,108 = 1.132; P = 0.348).

4. Discussion

The fly species collected in this survey represented 20 speciesin three families of Diptera (Muscidae, Calliphoridae, andSarcophagidae). C. megacephala was the dominant speciesin paddy field, restaurant, and garbage pile sites, which issimilar to the results of previous surveys of synanthropicflies in urban, suburban, forest, and mountain areas ofChiang Mai province in Northern Thailand [16]. On theother hand, previous surveys in Northern, Northeastern,and Central Thailand have suggested that M. domestica wasthe most abundant species in all the of the areas surveyedby Sucharit and Tumrasvin [15]. The numerical dominanceof M. domestica was also observed in previous studies inMalaysia [11, 12] and southern England [10]. It is interestingto note that M. domestica was not the dominant speciescollecting in this study, although the collection sites wereconsidered suitable breeding places for this species, whichhas strong associations with urban areas throughout theworld [4]. One reason for the differences between the currentstudy and others conducted in similar types of habitats, maybe the use of only 1-day tainted beef as bait in the presentstudy. Nurita et al. [11] suggested that adult blow flies aremore attracted to carrion and soggy, bloody or soiled hair,fur, or wool; using these resources as protein sources foregg maturation as well as for egg-laying substrate [20]. Thestrong association of house flies with fecal material and wetwaste may suggest that muscid flies may not be as stronglyattracted to a carrion based bait thus affecting collectionnumbers observed in this study. However, previous studiesin Thailand have indicated that 1-day tainted beef viscerawas the most suitable bait to use for collecting both blowfly and house fly in the field [16]. The species of flesh fliescollected in low numbers in this study may indicate a lack ofattraction to this particular type of bait or a lower populationabundance in these habitats.

This study revealed that more females were collected thanmales at almost all the study sites, with the exception ofgarbage piles in Warinchamrap district. This phenomenonwas similar to previous investigations in Thailand [14–16]and Malaysia for both Muscidae and Calliphoridae [12], inthe Czech Republic for Calliphoridae [21] and in Argentinafor Muscidae [21]. This sexual asymmetry may be attributed


900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Collections sites

Nu

mbe

r of

flie

s ca

ugh

t

Fresh-foodmarkets

Restaurant Schoolcafeterias

Paddy fieldsGarbagepiles

C. megacephalaM. domestica

a d, e

b

e a, cd

c

d, f

a, c

f

(a)

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Collections sites

Nu

mbe

r of

flie

s ca

ugh

t

Fresh-foodmarkets

Restaurant Schoolcafeterias

Paddy fieldsGarbagepiles

C. megacephalaM. domestica

ad

b

d

a, b

a dd

b, c

e

(b)

Figure 2: The abundance of the two predominant species, C. megacephala and M. domestica collected from various human habitations inMuang Ubon Ratchathani (a) and Warinchamrap (b), Ubon Ratchathani province, Northeast Thailand during September 2010–February2011. Non-overlapping letters indicate a statistically significant difference in abundance among sites as determined by Kruskal-WallisANOVA and Mann-Whitney U comparisons for each species in each district at the α = 0.05 level.

Table 3: Comparison between the two predominant fly species, C. megacephala and M. domestica from five collection sites in UbonRatchathani province, Northeast Thailand during September 2010–February 2011.

SpeciesCollection sites

Chi-square (P-value)Fresh-food markets Restaurant Garbage piles School cafeterias Paddy fields

M. domestica 110 (67.0%) 37 (19.1%) 72 (23.0%) 36 (60.0%) 4 (2.5%)216.2 (<0.001)

C. megacephala 54 (33.0%) 157 (80.9%) 242 (77.0%) 24 (40.0%) 161 (97.5%)

75

60

45

30

15

0

Month

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb

LocationMuang Ubon RatchathaniWarinchamrap

Mea

n n

um

ber

ofC

. meg

acep

hala

cau

ght

(a)

75

60

45

30

15

0

Month

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb

LocationMuang Ubon RatchathaniWarinchamrap

Mea

n n

um

ber

ofM

. dom

esti

caca

ugh

t

(b)

Figure 3: Mean abundance (+/− SE) of C. megacephala (a) and M. domestica (b) over September 2010–February 2011 from each locationin Ubon Ratchathani province, Northeast Thailand.


to the fact that baits provide females with proteins neededfor ovary development and as potential oviposition sites.However, the present results differ from a previous studyin Thailand [15], reporting a 1 : 1 ratio of female:male ingarbage piles among species in Muscidae, Callipholidae, andSarcophagidae.

In the present study conducted in Muang UbonRatchathani and Warinchamrap, the dominant species wasC. megacephala except at the school cafeteria sites in theWarinchamrap district, where M. domestica was dominant.The significantly high abundance of C. megacephala atrestaurant sites in the Muang Ubon Ratchathani suggests anattractive resource at these sites. Bunchu et al. [17] foundmale and female C. megacephala were attracted to a widevariety of animal meat products as well as fresh fruits whichare likely to be found in restaurants during food preparation.Sucharit and Tumrasvin [15] reported that C. megacephalacollected from the Northeastern part of Thailand were foundat garbage piles more than in market places, which is similarto the trend observed in this study. It is possible that thegarbage piles are more attractive to C. megacephala becausethis location is composed of a variety of decomposingmaterials, such as vegetables and other decaying organicmatter. On the other hand, such types of decaying organicmatter are probably less abundant in fresh-food markets andschool cafeterias, potentially explaining the lower numberof C. megacephala captured at these sites. Such informationmay suggest that sanitation can have a significant impacton the availability of food and breeding places for synan-thropic flies, thus affecting fly population densities in thatparticular human habitation. Poor sanitation practices may,therefore, increase the potential interaction between flies,enteropathogenic bacteria, and people.

In conclusion, this study illustrates the diversity ofsynanthropic flies collected in various human localities inUbon Ratchathani province of Northeast Thailand. Fewlong-term fly survey datasets exist in Thailand and the datapresented here suggest seasonality in C. megacephala abun-dance (Figure 3(a)), however, differences among monthswere not significant for the survey dates analyzed in thisstudy. Additional long-term data should be collected todetermine if this trend is significant. Such information mayhelp in the development of control programs and in devel-oping education programs to emphasize the importance ofsanitation for fly management in this particular area. Thisis also the first survey of the Sarcophagidae associated withhuman developments in Thailand. These data may also proveuseful in the development of data on forensically relevantflies in this region of Thailand. Overall, these data begin theestablishment of a database that can be used to investigateother aspects of the synanthropic fly species associated withhuman environments and their ability to transmit pathogensto humans for this region of Thailand.

Acknowledgments

This study was financially supported by the ThailandResearch Fund, Office of the Higher Education Commission

and Ubon Ratchathani University (MRG5380283 to T.Chaiwong). The authors would like to thank the College ofMedicine and Public Health, Ubon Ratchathani Universityfor facilities.

References

[1] R. M. Gabre and E. M. AbouZied, “Sarcosaprophagousflies in Suez province, Egypt II-synanthropic and abundancedegrees,” Bulletin of Entomological Society of Egypt, vol. 80, pp.125–132, 2003.

[2] T. K. Graczyk, R. Knight, R. H. Gilman, and M. R. Cranfield,“The role of non-biting flies in the epidemiology of humaninfectious diseases,” Microbes and Infection, vol. 3, no. 3, pp.231–235, 2001.

[3] M. J. R. Hall and K. G. V. Smith, “Diptera causing myiasis inman,” in Medical Insects and Arachnids, R. P. Lane and R. W.Crosskey, Eds., Chapman & Hall, London, UK, 1993.

[4] B. Greenberg, Biological and Disease Transmission, vol. 2 ofFlies and Disease, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, NJ,USA, 1973.

[5] N. D. Paraluppi, J. C. Vasconcelos, J. S. Aquion, E. G. Castellon,and M. S. B. Silva, “Calliphoridae (Diptera) in Manaus: IVbacteria isolated from blowflies collected in street market,”Acta Amazonica, vol. 26, no. 1-2, pp. 93–96, 1996.

[6] M. Forster, S. Klimpel, H. Mehlhorn, K. Sievert, S. Messler,and K. Pfeffer, “Pilot study on synanthropic flies (e.g. Musca,Sarcophaga, Calliphora, Fannia, Lucilia, Stomoxys) as vectors ofpathogenic microorganisms,” Parasitology Research, vol. 101,no. 1, pp. 243–246, 2007.

[7] M. Forster, K. Sievert, S. Messler, S. Klimpel, and K. Pfeffer,“Comprehensive study on the occurrence and distributionof pathogenic microorganisms carried by synanthropic fliescaught at different rural locations in Germany,” Journal ofMedical Entomology, vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 1164–1166, 2009.

[8] K. L. Sukontason, M. Bunchoo, B. Khantawa, S. Piangjai,Y. Rongsriyam, and K. Sukontason, “Comparison betweenMusca domestica and Chrysomya megacephala as carriers ofbacteria in northern Thailand,” Southeast Asian Journal ofTropical Medicine and Public Health, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 38–44,2007.

[9] O. P. G. Nmorsi, N. C. D. Ukwandu, and G. E. Agbozele,“Detection of some gastrointestinal parasites from four synan-thropic flies in Ekpoma, Nigeria,” Journal of Vector BorneDiseases, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 136–139, 2006.

[10] D. Goulson, L. C. Derwent, M. E. Hanley, D. W. Dunn, andS. R. Abolins, “Predicting calyptrate fly populations fromthe weather, and probable consequences of climate change,”Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 795–804, 2005.

[11] A. T. Nurita, A. Abu Hassan, H. Nur Aida, B. Norasmah,and S. M. R. Che, “The seasonal abundance of synanthropicfly populations in two selected food outlets in Pulau Pinang,Malaysia,” Journal of Bioscience, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 81–91, 2007.

[12] A. T. Nurita, A. Abu Hassan, and H. Nur Aida, “Species com-position surveys of synanthropic fly populations in northernpeninsular malaysia,” Tropical Biomedicine, vol. 25, no. 2, pp.145–153, 2008.

[13] S. Sucharit, W. Tumrasvin, and S. Vutikes, “A survey ofhouseflies in Bangkok and neighboring provinces,” SoutheastAsian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health, vol. 7,no. 1, pp. 85–90, 1976.

[14] W. Tumrasvin, S. Sucharit, and R. Kano, “Studies on medicallyimportant flies in Thailand. IV. Altitudinal distribution of flies


belonging to Muscidae and Calliphoridae in Doi IndhanondhMountain, Chiengmai, in early summer season,” Bulletin of theTokyo Medical and Dental University, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 77–81,1978.

[15] S. Sucharit and W. Tumrasvin, “The survey of flies of medicaland veterinary importance in Thailand,” Japanese Journal ofSanitary Zoology, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 281–285, 1981.

[16] R. Ngoen-klan, K. Moophayak, T. Klong-klaew et al., “Doclimatic and physical factors affect populations of the blowfly Chrysomya megacephala and house fly Musca domestica?”Parasitology Research, vol. 109, no. 5, pp. 1279–1292, 2011.

[17] N. Bunchu, K. L. Sukontason, J. K. Olson, H. Kurahashi, andK. Sukontason, “Behavioral responses of Chrysomya mega-cephala to natural products,” Parasitology Research, vol. 102,no. 3, pp. 419–429, 2008.

[18] W. Tumrasvin, H. Kurahashi, and R. Kano, “Studies onmedically important flies in Thailand. VII. Report on 42species of calliphorid flies, including the taxonomic keys(Diptera: Calliphoridae),” Bulletin of the Tokyo Medical andDental University, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 243–272, 1979.

[19] H. Kurahashi and L. Chowanadisai, “Blow flies (Insecta:Diptera: Calliphoridae) from Indochina,” Species Diversity,vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 185–242, 2001.

[20] J. C. Mariluis, J. A. Schnack, P. P. Mulieri, and L. D. Patitucci,“Calliphoridae (Diptera) from wild, suburban, andurban sitesat three Southeast Patagonian localities,” Revista de la SociedadEntomologica Argentina, vol. 67, no. 1-2, pp. 107–114, 2010.

[21] O. A. Fischer, “Blowflies of the genera Calliphora, Lucilia andProtophormia (Diptera, Calliphoridae) in South-Moravianurban and rural areas with respect to Lucilia bufonivoraMoniez, 1876,” Acta Veterinaria Brno, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 225–231, 2000.

Submit your manuscripts athttp://www.hindawi.com

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Anatomy Research International

PeptidesInternational Journal of


Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com

International Journal of

Volume 2014

Zoology


Molecular Biology International

GenomicsInternational Journal of


The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014


BioinformaticsAdvances in

Marine BiologyJournal of



Signal TransductionJournal of


BioMed Research International

Evolutionary BiologyInternational Journal of



Biochemistry Research International

ArchaeaHindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014


Genetics Research International


Advances in

Virolog y

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com

Nucleic AcidsJournal of

Volume 2014

Stem CellsInternational



Enzyme Research


International Journal of

Microbiology

surveyofthesynanthropicfliesassociatedwith ...downloads.hindawi.com/journals/jpr/2012/613132.pdf ·...

Documents